The difference between a matter like this and, say, the Taliban hosting al Queda in Afghanistan, is that the English authorities actively hunt these people, and are reasonably effective at it. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to urge or feel need for intervention from the outside: the state is doing its job. It is in a circumstance where such bodies operate freely, and state authorities clearly make no attempt to hamper their operations or arrest them, but rather turn a blind eye to them or even co-operate actively with them, in which another state will most definitely, and quite properly, take action with its own forces to remedy matters, should such action be within its power, and perceived as in its own best interests.

If we wanted to extradite the individuals in question to the US for prosecution, our government would have to demonstrate to the UK government that we had a prima facie case against them (among other things). This is SOP for most extradition treaties.

If you recall, that was pretty much what the Taliban asked us to provide them with before they turned bin Laden over to us, as they offered to do up until the 11th hour before our invasion of Afghanistan. We refused to provide them with any such proof of a case against bin Laden, and simply dismissed the whole offer without pursuing it before we sent the bombers in.

If bin Laden had been hiding out in the UK, would we have provided the UK with proof that we had a case against him in order to obtain his extradition?

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.